Andrade

Over a half-century ago, Justice Vallee, apparently weary of the repetitive and almost nauseating frequency of appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, reiterated the even then familiar “substantial evidence rule.” He then lamented: “No one seems to listen.” (Overton v. Vita-Food Corp. (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 367 , 370 [ 210 P.2d 757 ].) Just two years ago, in Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1448-1450 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ], we collected the pertinent precedents concerning appellate review of judicial determinations addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The abuse of discretion standard is not arcane and has been a staple of California jurisprudence since statehood. However, attacks upon the exercise of trial court discretion are all too frequent. As Justice Vallee would say: “No one seems to listen.”

Here, the People seek to overturn the discretionary granting of a new trial. This is a “daunting task,” and an “uphill battle.” (Estate of Gilkison, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1448 .) As we shall explain, there was no abuse of discretion as a matter of law, and the order granting new trial must be affirmed.

A jury convicted Osker…